Author
Topic: Why Use The KJV Translation? (Read 17104 times)

What if the moon was made of green cheese? It isn't, so the question is irrelevant.

Quote

See, take Romans 11:26..." Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

Doesn't that bother you? We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

No, not one bit. What bothers me is you don't know the difference between Romans 8 and Romans 11.

The Holy Spirit is not a man, neither is God a man,

1. Christ came to earth as a man!2. The Holy Spirit is a "Spirit" not a man!3. God is without mother or father, an infinite being, not a man nor a woman.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

brandplucked

Hi jd, you post: "But what if it is broke?See, take Romans 8:26..." Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."Doesn't that bother you? We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

jd, this is an oft repeated alleged error that has no basis in fact at all. People who make this false claim should do a bit more study and learn their own English language first before making these silly objections. I hope you are humbly open to the truth.

The Spirit ITSELF

“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?

Doug Kutilek is a well known critic of the KJB. He has both printed, and posted an article on the internet, which harshly criticizes this “supposed” error in the King James Bible.

Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”

He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”

The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant because he doesn't know the English language very well.

First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”

The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.

The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.

The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in their use of “it” are Tyndales , the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops Bible, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s, Young’s, 21st Century KJB, William’s New Testament 1937, Lamsa 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, 20th Century New Testament, Weymouth’s, Goodspeed’s American 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version , the NRSV of 1989, and the 2001 English Standard Version.

The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Goodspeed 1943, Third Millenium, and the NRSV.

The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Coverdale 1535, Darby, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Geneva of 1599 and 1602 agree with the KJB.

The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here are Alfords, Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Webster’s, Berkeley, Basic Bible in English, and the NRSV of 1989.

So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow the KJB have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly acceptable English.

The NASB and NIV have two interesting and parallel verses in the New Testament. Both Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.

Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NAS and NIV, and is referred to as “itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct personality.

In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. “For he had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is perfectly acceptable English.

Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to himself is found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV, and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born.”

All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22; Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of David by itself.”

All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

Notice the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.

The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?

Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the KJB seem to be unfounded. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the English language of the King James Bible.

" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."Doesn't that bother you? We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

jd, this is an oft repeated alleged error that has no basis in fact at all. People who make this false claim should do a bit more study and learn their own English language first before making these silly objections. I hope you are humbly open to the truth.

Well said Kinny. I checked this out myself and there are some good articles proving there is not one thing wrong with that translation of it, and its used that way throughout scripture. Just more of the KJV bashers grasping at straws.

What I have found is that people look so hard to try and find any little thing where they can grab hold of to declare the KJV inferior, and they never ever succeed. At least not with me. Now that I can see through their motives.

Hi Melanie, I just read that they are thinking of putting out a new version of the NIV with updated sources and modern text which will make it more readable. I have a few questions for those of you who use the KJV, and other versions for that matter.

1. Does the KJV need an update? 2. Do you think they should just leave the KJV alone? 3. Do you feel these updates of Bibles are based on need or greed? 4. Will you consider switching to a update or another version? 5. Have the changes and or differences in these Bibles improved them or the Church?

Hi Melanie, I just read that they are thinking of putting out a new version of the NIV with updated sources and modern text which will make it more readable.

Hi Tim, They're always tinkering with the Bible, it's in their genes. They can't help themselves because they want to appear intellectual and forward thinking. No, the KJV doesn't need an update. Christians need to get off their lazy butts and study scripture and stop thinking a new version will help them understand. The world we live in today is full of lazy people who want instant gratification. These modern versions (I think there are over 120 now) are just a symptom of that.

No more than consumers need their beef injected with growth hormones. But what's needed falls by the wayside when you have self-centered Christians who only look out for themselves. Who can resist the latest thing when told it is Improved, Older, Bigger, Newer, Enhanced, Super Charged, More Accurate, Superior, More Modern, More Understandable, etc., all under the proverbial umbrella of "something better."

Proverbs 22:28

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

Of course, that verse is "ultimately" talking about the God's word (not the KJV) but, the point is abundantly clear that sometimes things that don't need fixing are better left alone. The KJV doesn't "really" need editing, Christians need an education. Along with a little charity or agape love. I've gone over the Bible Versions Issue over the years with a fine tooth comb, and I see no benefit whatsoever in these new English translations, and a ton of mistakes, pitfalls, problems and drawbacks. But I'm in the minority. Because the world, and the worldly Church, loves the newest thing.

Quote

>>> 2. Do you think they should just leave the KJV alone?<<<

Actually, they can't really do anything to the KJV, it is what it is. They can only create another version of it. Perhaps call it "The Latest, Newer, Most Recent, New, New King James Version." But you can't stop people from altering the KJV if they wanted to, since it is in public domain with no owner nor anyone holding copyrights. So "people" can do whatever they want with it. Oddly enough (or maybe not) they've pretty much left it alone and concentrated on putting out other new versions, updates of other versions and producing versions from newer or older texts that have been found since the KJV was published. So besides the few changes from the 1611 and the introduction of the NKJV, it's "pretty much" been left alone. ...Thank God! However, restless and idle hands commonly bring mischief upon the head, without even being conscious of it. What I call common sense, they call an overreaction.

Quote

>>> 3. Do you feel these updates of Bibles are based on need or greed?<<<

Both. I think it's based on a "perceived need," whose niche will always be filled by people motivated by an ever-present greed. There really is no need or necessity for a new translation, as there weren't for any of the many modern versions that came before. But reasons are like excuses, justifications, explanations and pretexts--people can come up with one whenever they want to. Just as the world wants to jump on the latest Tattoo craze, latest dress styles, latest hair styles, latest car models, TV models etc. If you want it, you're going to find a reason to justify it. Truth be damned whether you "really" need it or not. That's why people want the latest Bible version touted and "perceived" to be better or more accurate. Or because they heard it comes from older manuscripts that people say are better (another well oiled myth). When in fact, all they're "really" doing is selfishly muddying the waters and causing confusion where there need not be any. ...Kinda Like Calvinists

Quote

>>> 4. Will you consider switching to a update or another version?<<<

Not I. Any minute advantage I might receive from a "supposedly" better translation, would be wholely eclipsed by the drawbacks, difficulties, weaknesses, hindrance and detriment it would cause to the Church as a whole. The trick is recognizing this.

Romans 15:1-2

"We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification."

But like I said, the Church today is just as selfish as the world is. In fact, I really don't see much of a difference anymore. They're going to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, come hell or high water. They euphemistically call it, Christian Liberty.

Philippians 2:3

"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."

What's missing in the Church is a meek spirit, the humility of Christ to sacrifice, that they count others more significant than themselves.

Quote

>>> 5. Have the changes and or differences in these Bibles improved them or the Church?<<<

This one should be self evident. Just open your eyes and look around. Did you see the Church improving with any of these new versions? At all? I saw a steady decline myself. Did you see the Church gaining a much better understanding of the scriptures when these new versions were introduced? Truth? I sure didn't. So you tell me, what really was the profit (besides in the pockets of those producing them) of all the new versions? Sure, people claim to better understand, but the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding tastes exactly the same as it did before the new versions--if not worse. So say what they will, they didn't receive better understanding, a clearer grasp of the word, nor a better knowledge from these new versions. All they received was the spirit to say they did for appearance of advancement. In "truth", better understanding doesn't come from new versions.

Proverbs 18:15

"The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge."

Better knowledge of the scriptures isn't the product of newer translations and modern versions, it comes from the fruit of the Spirit. Seeking a new translation is actually contrary to seeking wisdom and knowledge (in my humble opinion). And yet, you will have Christians swear by these modern translations as if they have literally changed their lives, loosing them from the burdensome chain of the KJV. It's all a farce. There's nothing new to be gleaned in any of these modern versions.

Mr. Warren, It seems I spend all my time here trying to set you straight. With all due respect, you are really getting to be a stick in the mud. With your old fashioned attitude, you seem to prefer that we all dwell in the past and mot modernize. Do you prefer to allow things like a better knowledge of the texts and enjoyment of it to pass you by? Because that's what it sounds like. You remind me of the early settlers out west who didn't want the rail road to come through because they thought it would bring industry that would destroy their beauty. You can't stop progress. You either change with it, or get left behind.

"You are cut off from Christ, you who would have righteousness by the law; you are turned away from grace". Gal. 5:4

You just condemn everything. You don't want people who are emotionally abused to get divorced. You don't think fasting is of any worth. You don't think women qualified should hold the same positions as men in the Church. You want women to wear granny dresses. You don't want one Christian group to consort with other Christian groups, even though they both claim Christ. You condemn the Roman Catholic religion. You reject those who claim the power of the spirit to heal. You claim Christians shouldn't get tattoos. And now to top it off, you want everyone to use an antiquated book that is outdated and difficult to understand, and which all agree is absolutely foreign to people today. They cannot make out what it is saying, except with hours of explanation and instruction. Why would you support that?

"But no one puts a patch of new cloth on an old garment, for its filling up takes from the garment and a worse rent takes place." Matt. 9:16

That's why I say (with all due respect), you are a stick in the mud. You know, change is good. You can't remain in the middle ages forever. The time of enlightenment has come.

But what's needed falls by the wayside when you have self-centered Christians who only look out for themselves. Who can resist the latest thing when told it is Improved, Older, Bigger, Newer, Enhanced, Super Charged, More Accurate, Superior, More Modern, More Understandable, etc., all under the proverbial umbrella of "something better."

Tony, Come on! Don't be so dramatic. There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved through the BBE, NIV, The Living Bible or the Catholic Douay-Rheims. So that's not an issue. What is at issue is that the KJV is old fashioned, difficult to understand, outdated, uses archaic language and is downright antediluvian. Is it beautifully written, maybe. That's debatable. But what isn't is that, unless we still use the words didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore, it's time for a revision.

>>>There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved through the BBE, NIV, The Living Bible or the Catholic Douay-Rheims. So that's not an issue. <<<

Actually it is an issue. Maybe not to you, but to me it is. There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved standing in a mosque, at a Benny Hinn revival, in the confession booth of a Roman Catholic Church or at a Wiccan pagan festival, but what has that got to do with the propriety or appropriateness of the act itself? How one can be saved is most certainly "not" the issue, the issue is what is the attentive, sound, correct, thoughtful and selfless thing for Christians to do. Not for themselves, but for the Church.

James 2:8

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:"

It seems denial and self sacrifice has also fallen by the wayside in our zeal for modernization and Christian liberty.

Quote

>>>What is at issue is that the KJV is old fashioned, difficult to understand, outdated, uses archaic language and is downright antediluvian.<<<

Antediluvian? There's nothing primitive or backward about the KJV of the Bible. And I'm sure it seems to you we belong to an earlier period or different time in holding to this book. And maybe we do. If by that you mean that period when Christians knew progress doesn't mean forsaking the narrow way for modernism or selfish narcicism. You call that old fashioned. The dictionary defines "Old Fashioned" this way:

favoring styles, methods or ideas no longer curent;

Attached to traditional or conservative ideas or customs;

holding to a way of thinking prevalent in former times:]/li]

That pretty much sums up the faithful Christian in our day, holding to ideas and laws and traditions that are no longer in vogue, accepted or popular. Nevertheless, we cling to them not because they are old, but because they are what's pleasing to God.

As for difficult to understand? Did you finish high school? If you did, then I'm sure you have no trouble understanding 99.9 percent of the words of the KJV. Even the old ones. And those "few" you might, if you don't use a dictionary, search or concordance, you aren't studying to understand the Bible anyway.

Proverbs 22:6

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

You're a grown man and you're whining about understanding? Kids 6 years old to 12 read and understand the KJV of the Bible. The truth is, this "I can't understand the KJV" of the Bible "excuse" is a myth or worse. It would be more honest to just say I like the new translations, rather than feign bewilderment by KJV wording.

Quote

>>> Is it beautifully written, maybe. That's debatable. <<<

..not in my house it's not

Quote

>>>But what isn't is that, unless we still use the words didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore, it's time for a revision.<<<

Didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore? You can't understand those words? You're joking, right? I thought you were going to give me one of the few difficult words like Concupiscence or unicorn. With the "didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore," you illustrate vividly what I've said all along. Namely, it's not really a question of understanding at all, but one of modernization. Wherefore doth thou then say ye can't understand these type words. No, you just don't like the styling.

"nosce te ipsum"

Peace,Tony Warren"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"